COLUMBIA  LIBRARIES  OFFSITE 

HEALTH  SCIENCES  STANDARD 


I7<S 


HX64076547 
RA578.A6  B89        The  health  commissio 


RECAP 


Columbia  (BnitJt r^fitp 

CoUege  of  ^fjpsiicians!  anb  ^urgcong 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 

in  2010  witii  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons 


http://www.archive.org/details/healthcommissionOObure 


THE 

HEALTH  COMMISSIONER'S  REFUTATION 


OF  THE 


HEALTH  COMMISSIONER'S  ANSWER 


TO 

THE  BUREAU  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH 

ON 

HEALTH  VIOLATIONS  IN  EAST  SIDE  SLAUGHTER  HOUSES 


September  15,  1911 

BUREAU  OF  MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH 
261    Broadway 


821 


THE  SLAUGHTER  HOUSES 


Slaughter  houses  on  the  east  side  are  public 
nuisances.  When  the  -wind  sets  inland,  they  smell 
to  Heaven.  Mayor  Gaynor  visited  these  places 
after  the  owners  of  the  abattoirs  had  been  apprised 
that  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  was  inspect- 
ing their  condition,  and  that  his  Honor  would  soon 
make  them  a  visit.  On  the  day  of  his  visit  the  bar- 
ometer was  low,  and  a  northerly  gale  was  blowing, 
which  bore  the  foul  odors  away  from  the  Mayoral 
olfactories.  If  the  Mayor  or  Commissioner  I/EDERLE 
have  any  doubts  about  the  customary  perpetration  of 
nuisances  in  the  east  side  slaughter  houses,  they 
should  visit  them  on  a  calm  day,  or  when  the  breezes 
are  borne  inward  upon  the  land. 

The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  makes  five 
specific  points  against  the  slaughterers,  supporting 
each  with  evidence.  Sour  and  tainted  fats  are  ille- 
gally rendered  within  the  city's  limits;  bones  and 
offal  are  boiled;  the  rendering  of  offal  in  the  centre 
of  this  large  city,  whether  specifically  prohibited  or 
not,  according  to  Sanitary  Superintendent  BensEL, 
has  never  been  done  for  any  considerable  time 
"without  a  nuisance";  blood  from  the  killing  rooms 
is  illegally  discharged  into  the  sewers,  and  the  Health 
Department  relies  too  much  on  the  Federal  authori- 
ties to  see  that  the  city's  meat  supply  is  prepared 
under  sanitar}'  conditions. 

The  business  of  slaughtering  animals  ought  not  to 
be  conducted  within  this  city  save  under  very  rigidly 
enforced  regulations.  The  Bureau  of  Municipal 
Research  presents  records  showing  that,  during  the 
past  year  or  more,  the  regulations  have  been  leniently 
enforced,  that  the  slaughtering  of  tuberculous  cattle 
has  been  permitted,  that  the  meat  in  the  abattoirs 
remains  unscreened  from  swarms  of  flies,  and  that 
whole  neighborhoods  have  been  kept  awake  by  foul 
odors  arising  from  forbidden  nuisances.  The  charges 
and  the  evidence  submitted  constitute  a  grave 
indictment. — A'^.   V.   Times,  July  g,  igii 

Efficient  Citizenship  No.  444 
BUREAU     OF     MUNICIPAL     RESEARCH 
261   Broadway,  New  York 


COMMISSIONER  LEDERLE'S  REFUTATION 


OF 


COMMISSIONER  LEDERLE'S  ANSWER 


TO 


Health  Violations  in  East  Side  Slaughter  Houses 


Letter  from  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  to  Mayor  Gaynor 
September  IS,   1911 


September  15,  1911 
Hon.  William  J.  Gaynor 

Mayor,  City  of  New  York 
Sir: 

When  you  said  publicly  that  you  were  satisfied  with  Com- 
missioner Lederle's  reply  to  our  Health  Violations  in  East  Side 
Slaughter  Houses  you  could  not,  we  believe,  have  read  his  re- 
ply carefully. 

Our  report  was  submitted  to  you  and  to  the  commissioner 
June  5,  as  the  basis  for  official  review  and  was  like  scores 
of  reports  subject  to  correction  if  wrong  in  any  particular.  We 
did  not  publish  it  until  after  our  motive  had  been  impugned  and 
its  accuracy  challenged. 

Instead  of  refuting  the  charges  which  we  based  upon  an 
analysis  of  official  records,  Commissioner  Lederle  admits  every 
significant  charge  but  one.  Even  the  sanitary  improvements 
and  precautions  which  commended  themselves  to  you  and  to 
several  editors  are  shown  by  Commissioner  Lederle's  answer 
to  be  results  rather  than  refutations  of  our  report. 

To  call  remediable  deficiencies  of  administration  to  your 
personal  attention  was  one  purpose  of  our  report.  Commis- 
sioner Lederle  has  outdone  us  in  advertising  these  deficiencies 
by  his  report  to  you. 

3 


1.  In  claiming  that  the  Bureau  charged  "that  the  business  of  dis- 
posing of  the  offal  in  the  city  is  illegal"  (page  i,  line  lo),  the 
commissioner  substitutes  the  words  "in  the  city"  for  the  words 
"within  the  borough  of  Manhattan,"  which  the  Bureau  used 
in  citing  the  sanitary  code's  absolute  prohibition. 

2.  Upon  two  sections  of  the  charter,  known  by  himself  and  the 
mayor  to  have  been  repealed  five  years  ago,  (1212,  1227),  Com- 
missioner Lederle  bases  his  defense  of  boiling  offal  and  render- 
ing fertilizer  in  east  side  slaughter  houses. 

3.  He  misstates  that  the  opinions  of  Corporation  Counsel  Rives 

(1902)  and  Watson  (1910)  sustained  the  views  the  department 
alwaj's  held  (page  5).  Mr.  Rives  said  the  sanitary  code 
"specifically  declares  that  no  fat  shall  be  rendered  except 
when  fresh  from  the  slaughtered  animals  and  taken  directly 
from  the  place  of  slaughtering.  This  is  a  clear  prohibition 
of  the  rendering  of  shop  fat."  Not  one  word  was  said  by 
Corporation  Counsel  Watson  of  shop  fat  nor  did  Commis- 
sioner Lederle  raise  the  question  with  Mr.  Watson  as  to  the 
legality  of  rendering  shop  fats. 

4.  It  is  not  true,  as  stated  by  the  commissioner  (page  5),  that 
the  "regulation  of  the  process  of  rendering  of  fat  has  always 
been  provided  by  section  95  of  the  sanitary  code,"  which 
section  instead  of  regulating,  specifically  prohibited  the  ren- 
dering of  shop  fats  until  the  amendment  of  March,  1911. 

5.  After  proving  to  3'ou  by  misstating  corporation  counsel 
opinions  that  boiling  shop  fat  brought  in  from  the  outside 
has  been  considered  legal  since  1902  he  tells  you  (page  9) 
that  up  to  Alarch,  1911  section  95  of  the  sanitary  code  "pro- 
hibited absolutely  the  collection  of  shop  fat  throughout  the 
city  and  from  places  outside  of  the  city  to  be  taken  to  the 
various  rendering  plants  within  the  city  limits  for  rendering 
or  melting." 

6.  After   this   explanation  that  up   to   March,   1911,   collection   of 

shop  fat  was  prohibited,  he  says  (page  10)  that  in  November, 
1910,  the  absolutely  prohibited  business  had  been  formally 
permitted  upon  his  recommendation. 

7.  The  "careful  inspection  and  report  of  outstanding  permits" 
which  (page  10)  the  commissioner  claims  were  made  prior 
to  November  29,  1910,  were  not  on  record  up  to  May,  191 1. 
The  records  did  show  that  under  Acting-mayor  Mitchel  all 
permits  for  the  boiling  of  shop  fat  were  revoked  to  take 
effect  November  30th  and  that  so  far  as  the  record  showed, 
without  your  knowledge,  without  careful  inspection  and  with- 
out any  report  whatever  to  or  by  the  commissioner,  permits 
were  reissued,  after  Acting-mayor  Alitchel  gave  way  to  you, 
to  take  effect  the  day  before  the  rescinding  was  to  have  taken 
place. 

8.  In  stating  on  page  2:  "The  disposal  of  shop  fat  within  the 
city  is  legal  (July  18,  191 1)  under  permit  by  the  department 
of  health,"  three  facts  were  not  presented  to  you:  (a)  that 
until  the  sanitary  code  was  amended  in  March,  1911,  the 
rendering  of  shop  fat  could  not  be  legally  permitted  by  him; 


(b)  that  the  legalizing  of  this  business  took  the  place  of  a 
thorough  investigation  and  report  promised  to  the  mayor 
by  the  commissioner,  November  4,  1910  but  not  even  yet  forth- 
coming, and  (c)  that  even  after  legalizing  the  issuance  of 
permits  he  allowed  the  business  to  continue  under  permits 
that  had  been  issued  contrary  to  the  sanitary  code  in  Novem- 
ber, 1910.  Is  it  not  significant  that  the  minutes  of  the  meet- 
ing of  March  21,  1911,  report  the  amendment  (p.,  2580  City 
Record)  but  do  not  mention  the  report  leading  to  the  amend- 
ment? 

9.  After  arguing  in  behalf  of  oflFal  boiling  and  fertilizer  render- 
ing that  efiforts  to  remove  offensive  waste  outside  the  city 
limits  "may  lead  to  serious  embarrassment  by  injunction" 
(page  2)  he  reports  a  recommendation  of  his  own  in  March, 
191 1,  that  cities  outside  New  York  be  permitted  to  bring  shop 
fats  to  New  York  for  rendering  (page  10). 

10.  When  he  claims  that  the  department  has  always  considered 
"disposition  on  the  premises  the  most  feasible  and  satisfactory 
method  and  that  most  easy  to  control,"  he  fails  to  inform 
you  that  Swift  &  Company  has  been  permitted  to  use  the  less 
feasible,  less  satisfactory  and  less-easy-to-control  method  of 
transportation  outside  of  the  city  and  that  during  his  present 
term  no  violation  orders  have  been  issued  against  Swift  & 
Company  (page  7). 

11.  After  showing  that  the  most  feasible  and  satisfactory  and  easy 

to  control  method  is  one  that  requires  no  transportation 
(page  7)  he  recommended  permitting  other  cities  to  transport 
shop  fats  to  New  York  (page  10). 

12.  After   implying  that  there   is    no  place   except   two   east   side 

slaughter  houses  (within  the  city  limits)  where  offensive 
waste  may  be  disposed  of  he  notes  that  garbage  and  dead 
animals  are  disposed  of  at  Barren  Island  (page  2),  although 
every  argument  against  transporting  fats  would  apply  with 
greater  force  to  garbage  and  dead  animals. 

13.  While  it  is  true  that  the  department  "can  keep  comprehensive 

records  of  the  direction  of  wind"  and  that  during  "the  hot 
weather  these  districts  are  under  continuous  24  hour  in- 
spection" (pages  7,  8)  it  is  also  true  that  proper  records  were 
not  kept  and  continuous  24  hour  inspection  had  not  been  in- 
stituted until  after  our  report.  The  records  that  had  been  kept 
did  show,  however,  that  in  answer  to  a  citizen's  complaint  six 
visits  were  made  February  18-23,  1911,  when  the  wind  was 
blowing  away  from  the  complainant:  and  again  that  22  rein- 
spections  of  Sulzberger  &  Sons  and  United  Dressed  Beef  Co. 
plants,  June  13  to  September  26,  1910  were  reported  "Not 
Complied  With." 

14.  Failure  to  comply  with  the  sanitary  code  (section  88)  is  speci- 
fically admitted  and  justified  on  page  11  when  the  commis- 
sioner says,  "It  is  not  necessary  to  issue  separate  permits 
.  .  .  for  treating  sheep  skins  in  slaughter  houses  or  in 
adjacent  buildings  within  the  slaughter  house  district."  The 
Bureau  did  not  argue  the  wisdom  of  the  sanitary  code.  It 
stated,  what  the  commissioner  now  admits,  that  the  sanitary 
code  was  being  violated  by  the  department. 


15-  In  flat  contradiction  of  the  commissioner's  claim  (page  3) 
"that  in  every  establishment  in  this  city  substantially  all  the 
blood  is  now  saved  except  that  which  is  carried  away  by  the 
washing  of  floors,"  are  six  separate  orders  issued  in  March  and 
May  of  191 1  against  three  east  side  establishments  "to  discon- 
tinue the  practice  of  discharging  blood  into  the  waters  of  the 
East  River." 

16.  If,  as  the  commissioner  says:  "There  can  be  no  objection  to 
blood  carried  away  by  the  washing  of  floors,"  the  issuance  of 
the  above  and  other  similar  orders  was  an  unwarranted  an- 
noyance. 

17.  That  "the  incentive  to  collect  blood  because  its  commercial 
value  is  about  $50.00  a  ton  dry,"  mentioned  on  page  3,  has 
been  insufficient  is  shown  from  the  above  mentioned  orders 
and  from  the  commissioner's  claim  on  page  6  that  "for  some 
years  this  department  has  insisted  upon  the  blood  being 
saved." 

18.  If  the  provision  in  section  85  of  the  sanitary  code  against 
allowing  blood  from  slaughtered  animals  to  flow  into  the 
river  or  sewer  is  obsolete  and  "merely  a  technical  violation," 
(page  3)  it  is  notable  that  in  the  amendment  of  March,  1911, 
this  so-called  technical  provision  of  the  sanitary  code  was 
not  repealed.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  spite  of  the  alleged 
commercial  value  of  dry  blood,  three  of  the  houses  on  the 
east  side  dealt  with  in  our  report  had  absolutely  no  means 
for  collecting  blood  except  bucket  and  shovel. 

19.  To  find  slaughter  houses  on  the  east  side  on  the  whole,  in 
good  sanitary  condition,  (page  4)  in  August,  two  months  after 
our  report  was  submitted  to  you,  is  certainly  no  refutation 
of  our  report  but  rather  a  testimony  to  its  value. 

20.  The    improvements    in    the    rendering    and    fertilizing    plants 

which  according  to  the  commissioner  (page  4),  "were  re- 
quired during  the  last  year,"  looked  to  improvements  in  two 
businesses,  one  of  which  until  March,  191 1,  was  specifically 
prohibited  in  the  sanitary  code,  i.  e.,  the  treatment  of  shop 
fats,  and  the  other  of  which,  fertilizer  rendering,  is  today 
illegal  in  Manhattan.  Had  the  commissioner  stated  the  whole 
case  to  you  he  would  have  reported  that  the  more  important 
improvements  were  forced  by  national  inspectors  and  that 
as  late  as  June,  iqtt  the  local  health  department's  records 
mentioned  only  minor  improvements.  From  the  standpoint 
of  efficient  health  administration  it  is  almost  as  serious  for 
the  department  to  have  required  many  improvements  without 
recording  such  requirements  as  to  have  neglected  the  re- 
quirements. 

21.  The  records  show  that  orders  looking  "especially  to  the  better 

disposition  of  odors  from  rendering  and  fertilizer  plants" 
(page  4)  were  chiefly  complied  with  by  shifting  of  the  wind 
from  east  to  west,  cessation  of  complaints  or  Acting-mayor 
Mitchel's   retirement. 

22.  The  issue  of  offensive  odors  is  not  met  by  the  minute  descrip- 

tion of  the  equipment  for  decreasing  odors  and  by  the 
statement  (page  3).  "Both  of  the  plants  .  .  .  where  fat 
is   rendered  and   slaughter  house   wastes  converted   into   fer- 


tilizer  ....  for  many  years  have  been  equipped  with 
appliances."  These  odor  destroyers  were  there  when  you 
wrote  in  1910  "Complaints  multiply."  They  were  there  when 
in  1910  Sanitary  Superintendent  Bensel  wrote  to  Acting- 
mayor  Mitchel:  "It  is  a  matter  of  knowledge  to  officers  of 
this  department  that  no  such  plant  has  been  operated  without 
a  nuisance  for  any  considerable  length  of  time,"  and  referred 
to  their  powers  to  destroy  as  "theoretical."  Destroyers  that  do 
not  destroy  are  no  public  protection.  The  very  day  when  the 
commissioner's  letter  and  the  mayor's  "entirely  satisfactory" 
were  published  in  the  newspapers  those  destroyers  so  failed 
to  destroy  that  a  nuisance  was  committed  all  the  late  after- 
noon for  blocks  west  of  these  same  destroyers.  It  is  odors 
outside  the  plant,  not  equipment  inside,  that  concern  the 
public. 

23.  The  defense  of  the  odor  destroying  equipment  (for  offal  boil- 

ing) breaks  down  with  the  commissioner's  statement  on  page 
7  "the  appliances  are  not  fool  proof  and  constant  vigilance 
is  necessary."  Odors  on  the  outside  show  that  constant  vigil- 
ance has  not  been  given.  Superintendent  Bensel  says  that 
constant  vigilance  cannot  be  hoped  for.  As  late  as  May  15, 
1911,  the  inspector  reported:    "Odors  escaping     .     .     .     Doors 

allowed  to  be  left  open.     Doors  in  fertilizer  shed 

open." 

24.  Misstatement  is  made  by  the  commissioner  even  in  so  small 

a  matter  as  the  number  of  complaints  shown  on  the  depart- 
ment's records.  He  says  (page  8)  that  from  January  i,  1910, 
through  June,  191 1,  five  citizens'  complaints  were  received. 
Yet  we  published  in  our  report  eleven  complaints  taken  from 
the  official  records  of  the  department,  not  including  any  let- 
ters that  may  have  been  received  at  the  mayor's  office  and 
not  transmitted  to   the   department. 

25.  In  many  respects  the  most  serious  effort  to  evade  the  depart- 
ment's responsibility  for  unsanitary  conditions  in  the  east 
side  slaughter  houses  is  evidenced  in  the  ten-line  paragraph 
on  page  11  devoted  to  screens,  cuspidors,  dirty  boots,  clothing 
and  medical  inspection  of  employees.  These  ten  lines  are 
meant  to  answer  four  pages  of  specific  statements  in  our 
report.  Here  the  commissioner  not  only  admits  that  screens 
for  keeping  out  "flies  and  other  vermin"  are  lacking,  but, 
after  pleading  the  difficulty  of  screening,  actually  declares 
"nor  is  it  necessary,  although  it  is  desirable,  that  all  foods 
and  food  productions  should  be  screened  from  flies  as  far 
as  possible." 

Again  the  absence  of  cuspidors  is  not  only  admitted  but 
justified.  The  flippant  reference  to  cleanliness  of  boots,  cloth- 
ing, employees,  etc.,  not  only  disregards  specific  charges  in 
our  report  and  the  greater  part  of  the  health  officer's  re- 
sponsibility for  sanitary  protection  in  slaughter  houses,  but  is 
a  distinct  slur  on  the  regulations  of  the  United  States  depart- 
ment of  agriculture,  quoted  in  our  report,  which  require  that 
garments  and  persons  shall  be  clean  and  "they  shall  be  re- 
quired to  pay  particular  attention  to  the  cleanliness  of  their 
boots  and  shoes." 

26.  The    existence    of    absorbent    material    in    the    dressing    and 

cooling  rooms  and  the  unsanitary  condition  of  woodwork, 
floors,   etc.,  are  entirely  ignored  by  the   commissioner.     Our 


report  cited  violation  after  violation  of  section  85  of  the  sani- 
tary code.  That  the  commissioner  has  known  of  the  im- 
portance heretofore  attributed  to  these  provisions  is  shown 
(a)  by  his  letter  to  you  transmitting  an  opinion  of  Corpora- 
tion Counsel  Watson  that  distinctly  mentioned  these  pro- 
visions, and  (b)  also  by  several  violations  against  absorbent 
floors,  woodwork  to  be  scraped  and  cleaned,  walls,  ceil- 
ings and  partitions  to  be  whitewashed,  etc.  Yet  at  the  time 
of  your  visit  with  the  commissioner,  absorbent  material 
was  found  in  the  floor,  pillars,  etc.  of  a  dressing  room  of  one 
of  the  two  companies  to  which  the  commissioner's  special 
plea  is  chiefly  devoted. 

2"/.  Ignoring  all  of  our  specific  illustrations  of  lax  administration 
of  the  sanitary  code  excepting  those  which  relate  to  offal 
and  shop  fats  is  to  ignore  nine  different  sources  of  danger 
and  nuisance. 


IN  CONCLUSION 

All  denials  by  Commissioner  Lederle  are  thus  emphatically 
refuted  by  Commissioner  Lederle  and  the  sanitary  code  except- 
ing three,  one  of  which  points  to  a  clear  error  on  the  part  of  the 
Bureau's  investigators,  one  to  an  excessive  estimate  and  one 
to  a  debatable  question  of  fact  which  cannot  now  be  settled : 

I.  The  Error:  Two  of  the  eleven  houses  inspected 
have  equipments  for  destroying  or  condensing  odors. 
That  these  destroyers  do  not  destroy  does  not  excuse 
the  Bureau  for  having  failed  to  discover  their  existence. 
That  they  cannot  "for  any  considerable  length  of  time" 
destroy,  the  sanitary  superintendent  maintained  in  his 
letter  of  September  8,  1910. 

II.  The  Excessive  Estimate:  The  estimate  that  in 
different  houses  from  one-fourth  to  two-thirds  of  the 
blood  was  permitted  to  escape  into  the  East  River  was 
probably  an  over-estimate  even  at  the  time  the  inquiry 
was  made,  excepting  for  the  three  houses  named,  where 
no  provision  was  made  for  catching  the  blood  except  by 
bucket  and  shovel.  However,  the  exact  proportion  of 
blood  is  beside  the  main  issue.  No  blood  the  sanitary 
code  says.  Too  much  blood  the  metropolitan  sewerage 
commission  reported. 


III.  The  Debatable  Issue  of  Fact :  Whether  the  fans 
on  the  day  of  our  investigators'  visits  in  April  and  May- 
were  intake  or  "oiittake"  fans,  bringing  fresh  air  in  to 
help  destroy  odors  or  forcing  the  offensive  odors  into  the 
outside  air,  it  is  impossible  at  present  to  establish.  The 
fact  that  the  fans  seen  by  the  mayor  on  June  20  w^ere 
bringing  fresh  air  into  these  rooms  does  not  prove  that 
two  months  earlier  those  same  fans  reversed  were  not 
forcing  air  outside  the  rooms.  Without  challenge  by  the 
mayor,  by  the  health  commissioner  or  by  the  company 
involved.  Police  Commissioner  Baker  on  July  28,  1910, 
reported  to  Mayor  Gaynor  that  his  Sergeant  Mallan 
found  "two  large  revolving  fans  on  the  south  side  which 
.  .  .  send  the  odor  out  of  the  building  and  if  there  is 
any  wind  blowing  it  is  naturally  carried  in  the  immediate 
vicinity." 

Evils  such  as  those  admitted  by  Commissioner  Lederle's 
answer  to  you  point  to  administrative  laxness  at  health  head- 
quarters that,  as  you  know,  has  been  found  in  several  other 
directions  to  be  jeopardizing  the  health  and  comfort  of 
New  York's  citizens. 

The  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research  did  not  cast  about  for 
something  to  do  and  finally  hit  upon  east  side  slaughter  houses. 
On  the  contrary,  as  the  mayor  personally  knows,  the  Bureau  at 
the  time  this  inquiry  was  begun  in  April,  191 1,  and  in  the 
preceding  February  when  a  study  was  made  of  the  Brooklyn 
slaughter  houses,  was  busily  engaged  co-operating  at  great  ex- 
pense with  several  of  the  mayor's  department  heads  as  well  as 
with  other  city  officials. 

We  were  informed  that  with  full  knowledge  of  officers  of  the 
department  of  health  and  for  a  price  tuberculous  cattle  wiere 
being  slaughtered  in  Brooklyn  contrary  to  public  health  and  to 
the  sanitary  code.  We  did  not  look  for  the  price,  but  we  did 
look  for  tuberculous  meat  and  found  it.  Our  report  upon  dis- 
gusting conditions  and  health  violations  in  Brooklyn  slaughter 

9 


houses  led  to  orders  being  issued  b}"  the  department  of  health 
for  correcting  these  evils  at  least  temporarily. 

When  complaint  was  made  by  a  citizen  against  east  side 
slaughter  houses  the  same  investigator  was  used  to  collect  in- 
formation who  had  already  submitted  to  the  health  department 
information  regarding  Brooklyn  violations  which  the  health 
department  had  found  to  be  correct  in  detail.  One  error  due 
to  the  expulsion  of  our  investigators  from  the  two  premises 
where  ofifal  and  shop  fat  were  being  rendered  contrary  to  law 
does  not  materially  affect  the  issue. 

In  addition  to  the  violations  alread}^  reported  to  you  two 
other  significant  facts  deserve  to  be  called  to  the  mayor's  at- 
tention and  to  the  public's  attention.  One  of  the  establishments 
was  found  to  be  taking  water,  not  through  the  meters  estab- 
lished by  the  department  of  water  supply  but  from  the  city 
hydrant  where  a  measure  of  such  water  was  inif^ossible. 
Secondly,  another  establishment  was  found  to  be  paying  the 
dock  department  for  obstructing  East  45th  Street  over  which, 
investigation  shows,  not  the  department  of  docks  but  tlie 
borough  of  iManhattan  has  jurisdiction.  These  point  to  evils 
no  less  insidious,  and  no  less  deserving  of  executive  attention 
and  correction,  because  the  origin  was  under  another  adminis- 
tration than  your  own. 

Very  truly  yours, 

BUREAU   OF   MUNICIPAL   RESEARCH. 


10 


(Address  side  of  postal  card  Efficient  Citizenship  No.  477 
See  back  cover) 


MUNICIPAL  RESEARCH  URGES 

Fact  not  theory 
Practise  Not  Purpose 
Methods  not  men 

Its  support  is  derived  from  private  subscriptions, 
and  its  final  appeal  is  to  enlightened  public  opinion 

Its  scope  is  as  wide  as  municipal  activity ; 
comprehending  finance  and  accounts,  public  w^orks, 
safety,  health,  charities,  and  education 

Its  method  is  investigation,  report  to  responsible 
officials,  and  constructive  suggestion 

'Philadelphia  Bureau  of  Municipal  l^esearch 

Bureau  of  Municipal   Research 
261    Broadway,   New  York 


3) 

m 

0) 

m 

> 

o 

I 

10 

a> 
m 

JO 

o 

> 
o 

< 

z 

m 

£ 

-< 
o 
a 


c  «  °  5  c 


5^      <-^  c; 


si  -  tr 
2.3  '^ 


g.    -^ 


O 

c 

X 

m 

> 
c 

o 

■n 

c 

2 


og 


"d  3 
1-1  ~ 
O 


'-'•  rf-  tl"  r* 

^  3^3   c* 

o  g  2.0 
5- .^3  5" 


en 


fB    fB    ft 
p  r+ 


P 

p  n 
X 
O 


crq  3  W 


t) 


p  •     3*3 


s*o  e  s  S.S  c^: 


S,B 


3*C  — Cr 

p  2  2 

M   "  -i   fts 


™  rt  a. 
?  to  cr, 

r*  i-f  "^ 

ST  '^ 


2.  >>  f* 

fD    >-i   en 


<-  ^  -  5 
c  o  2. 


_,  re  o  Ci  ^ 

^»  o  ;:5 

3  -t  a.p 

tn  5"  ji  f  :l 

a.rc  «>  o  Ej 

3  -r,  en 

w,  i-f  en  . 

3   •      p  O" 

3  ^'  ft 


o  55.  3**0 

■^f?  O  3 
£o^    tn 

o  m  p  - 
Cu  en  —  P 
1-".     tn   _ 

»  en 

a  ^ 

fL  p  ^ 

-  "      a 

en   i-n^li   '^ 


1  fH 


en 


O   ft 


O 
O 

hi 
t^  en 

P 

o  a 


p  ft  3  w 


a  5r3 


o  2. 

3  a"     ^-n 
^<  ft      2.  -• 

o 


o  tra- 


o  5 

03  W5 


."     i-t     ft  IT} 

p  ft  p  1^ 


en 

O   ft 


P 


o 


a^  ft 


ft      r^     a 


tn  li-  o  a 

"^  5"  ^-  a 
00    -  a 

B  p  ■  ^ 

B"^    !?''C 

t.  p  ^  -I 

as--  -■ 


■^3 

[3.0      ; 
ft    a    hH 

"^  ~  '2 
I  ►-.  -  ft 
o  p 
p  en  i^ 


p 


a-g  ^S*cr 
2.«,     ^  ^ 

F  i-l   rt;  ft   '^ 

ft    O    a^  -.    hrl 


p 


a'^  OB 

«->■  C-'<  3 
3''-  a  ^ 

ft  fi  o  _ 
ft  ft   en  "< 


2  '-•       a  H        P  v; 

;i^^^5pS.^5-?a 


en  "<  JQ 


'A'^   C.-- 


ft  3  SB'S  a*rtp'f^ 

.    Crq   ft   ft   ^Jft   en   C-S 


'3  3- 


»^S'S  2 


S"  ft 
"•p 


ri^      ~     '" 
J^ftg- 

tn  O  5  ;= 


^.  ^  tn  ►-. 

&  dj  r»-  a 

ft  en   O  on? 


ft  O 

3)0     HH 

ft   Oi 

;  i-i  a 

•     en 

.^'^ 
o  g  ft 

•^03 

O    ">    r^ 
O    ►-.  3* 

(ca  ft 


ftp„en<!ri-        5^'^ 

o  a  g  S^  2.  a-^  g-  ^ 
§.^^acr2.gc^^ 

3  «  I  =*.>^  p  g.p 
^     5-0        ^  ft   ^^B-B 

fQ     OP2ft__"'';;r 

m—rt^^ft^ft 

^  ?S?3"^3i1§2. 


txift  en  J^- 

O   i-i  3. 

ji  ft  cr  a* 

_^  O  ft   en 

t  ►-^  ft 

hr-B  ft 

a^         3 

ft  "^  c; 

—  /T^  ft  a 


o  3cIq  p  a  ^ 

2.sr?g^s3. 

;5  S  ft  p  3*3 

{?  w   3  V!   g   ^ 
en   p   tn   o   ft   3" 

—  3   5'  "^  i"   ft 


•  ri-  a  eo  ^  ft 


S-o'2  2.0    . 

";  ^  ►I  eo  o  S 

^a-B  2.P  § 
a'  ft  CL  ;:r.  a  "^ 

P  ft    N    &i  p 

^  2 .  £ .  a  3  '^ 

;:*"  ft   "       en  -, 

O   en   en   p   ft^O 

en   O       v;   ^^  ►-. 
Q       a-     ►rt  £. 

12-g   p  o•5■ 
E  »-  r  g  en   ^ 

en   3   f>   p 

-2.a  B 
a*^  "■  £ 
!"  3  2  ^  5" 

CLi  T    ft   ft    P 


ai2.  !2  S  o 
ft  o^2  iS  a 
o-a"^U 

.     ^   t:-.  rr  ft 

ft  3  o  93 

.     eo  to  p 

£a  o  o 
ft  -w  ii 


ft 


B 

B. 

■-I  :i.  eo' 

13' £.0 


3  a  o  ft 


ft  t' 

^g  o'ft 


p   ft 

C  «  "^  2. 

i-T.  hI,  ft 


ft  ^'  ij 

eo  C"  ~ 

ft  o"f=* 

p  ".  ft 

1-1  en 

S-Bg 

^  S  B 
Sp2 
S,^  a- 

h:°  - 

033 

a  3^3 
B  2.ff. 


en   tn   i-t-  1— •  r* 


^  S  B 


b3 
a 


<^  B 

ft  ■-• 

"7  a 

a'  ^ 

rs  en 

I—  ft 

::.  B 


p     i-f    o 

S,  »   3 


•-^  .  B* 

P  ^ 

2  H  ft 

ft  ft  ;j 

p  2  B 

P  r*  ft 

5'  "■  2. 

B*  5  S,  3 

ft  ft 

f5 


ft  SL 

;?  g 

p  B 

3  'H. 


.rf     r*    O     en     en 


B'  a 


-  2.   P    f^     2 


a-  B 


p 


en  p 

B  S 

ft  ft 

a  3 

a  2 


a   ^ 


ft    tr"  Cu  "-•■ 


a*  p   ?  p 
o  ^ 


a 


a-  13 
3     ft 


.I     ft-    B* 


!rt  B   S   -  £^  B 


ft    p 


Pj    ft     Ji" 


S.  B 


B'    S 


a    p    ^ 
o-   3  ^ 

r^      Cr      !-•:> 


■I     D    "^      ??* 


S*    B 

ft        Q. 

ft      >— 


B*  2.  B* 
a  p 
B^    en 


3     3- 


^•:S   a 


f^i  - 

o 

3 

3     '^ 

2-  a- 
ft   p 
c-    ■ 
g^ft 


s    a- 


{X.  ft 


a   ^'    ft 
■"CD. 

P     ^     r5 
O 


3  crq 
3 

Cu  3* 

ft  P 


ft 

&> 

•     a* 

0 

^ 

ft 

p 

H 

3. 

0 

S!  a 

1-1 

S  a  P-  ft 

.,    -.  1-1  '-t 

0,    en     ►^.  ft  r*  a 

•^  rt-  CO  p  o  a 


-s  i 


Cii    Dj 


T3    'tS     p 
(-•     ft     (^ 


P 


S  S  5 

£,^  B 


e  o 


w  a-  ^  SI. 


g  ^ 

5     B 
?    B* 


•  «>   Orq  ►-< 

to  CT*    ft  ft 

B  a   a  ^. 

Cr  en     ft  a 

^  a-  3  i. 

7  eo   """S  en 


tn    >< 


P    '^ 
(0     to 


5.  B 


B*  2 


Cb    3-    2. 


B*    ft     ft 


CO     p     o     M     p     to  tn 
-^                ■    -^    ft 

H  ft 

ft  "tS 


o     O 


?g 

to      ". 

5-  2 

ft  t) 

to     p 


B     - 


r-   ft    5    Sft  o 
a-  X    B-  3    B- 


W 

Z 

a 
o 
o 

H 

o 

(Z) 


O 

w 


C/5 

H 
C 
D 
Kl 

H 

W 
PO 

w 
n 
o 

D 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY    LIBRARIES 


This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 


DATE  BORROWED 


DATE  DUE 


DATE  BORROWED 


DATE  DUE 


C2e  (747j  MlOO 


RA578.A6 


B89 


Bureau  of  municipal  research.  New 
iork. 

The  health  coiainissioner»s  refuta- 
tion  of  the  health  conmiissioner 'g 
answer  to  the  Bureau  of  municiapAl 
research  on  health  violoations  in 
east  side  slaughter  houses. 


24: 


1343 


^.  <J*    A^l 


^i-^uuRY 


RAS7i  ,  A6 


e^pj 


